thehefner: (Default)
[personal profile] thehefner
I'm sure we're gonna see plenty of angry LJ posts in the next 24 hours over Bush's comments. But I mean, really, is anyone surprised? Anyone? Anyone at all?

See, what I'm wondering about is why no one has brought up that the "institution of marriage" was one that had its basis not in love or romance, but, if I'm not mistaken, purely as a business transaction. It was created (or at the very least utilized throughout history more often than not) as a way for families to pool their money together. Marriage is the original corporate merger, and it wasn't until poets and writers got their hands into it that it could have been seen purely as a romantic endevour, although even then... Perhaps I am mistaken, and if so please do fill me in.

Were the roots of marrige purely based in love and romance for the union between a man and a woman, then I could sooner understand and sympathize with those who oppose gay marriage. And while I am not a pro-gay-marriage activist per se, I really don't see how their getting married affects me either way.

But then, I know that here I, much like everyone else on this list, is preaching to the choir.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

September 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425 26272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 8th, 2026 08:57 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios